I will (in my new capacity as Issues List editor) add this as an issue
with
a proposal to resolve it as an editorial item. Henrik, please make the
posting as Jean-Jacques so I can point to it from the issues list.
............................................
David C. Fallside, IBM
Ext Ph: 530.477.7169
Int Ph: 544.9665
fallside@us.ibm.com
"Jean-Jacques
Moreau" To: David Fallside/Santa
Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
<moreau@crf.ca cc: Henrik Frystyk
Nielsen <henrikn@microsoft.com>, Marc
Hadley
non.fr> <marc.hadley@sun.com>,
Jean-Jacques Moreau
<moreau@crf.canon.fr>
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Must
understand mustUnderstand proposal]
05/15/2001
06:51 AM
David,
I'm fine with just adding an extra sentence to the spec; my
understanding was that the issues list could also be used to track
issues of that sort; but then maybe not?
As for private email, I'm the guilty one; initially, I just wanted to
ping Henrik. I'd be happy if Henrik
reposted his response (included) to my initial ping, then you could
repost ours.
Jean-Jacques.
David Fallside wrote:
> Jean-Jacques, I tend to agree with Henrik on this one. You are
correct
that
> processed blocks are removed post-processing and so inter-block
references
> may break. However, it is unclear to me what you would expect an
XMLP
> processor to do in such situations? Checking references between
blocks
> would require the _XMLP_ processor to inspect the contents of
blocks;
would
> you also have the XMLP processor check references from blocks to
addresses
> outside the message, and how would you deal with failure in such
> situations? ...... I think this is a slippery slope that we should
avoid.
> I think this is an issue -- for application developers -- and we can
help
> them out by at least warning them of the problem: this warrants an
extra
> sentence in the spec, IMO.
> BTW, is there a reason this discussion is taking place on private
email?
If
> not, please move any reply over to dist-app.